WesWorld

Actually, Germany's vote on Hybrid Ships is Yes, not No. Not that it probably matters too much, mind, but still.....

And That is why Nordmark votes no on that subject, we don't wish to see hybrids in the baltic making our lives more difficult

Quoted

That leaves the Neatherland, Iberia, and the United Kingdom.

Yes, unless Chile wants to vote as well.

Quoted

Actually, Germany's vote on Hybrid Ships is Yes, not No. Not that it probably matters too much, mind, but still.....

Whoops! My mistake. ^_^;;
Will correct it immediately.

Quoted

And That is why Nordmark votes no on that subject, we don't wish to see hybrids in the baltic making our lives more difficult

{laugh} Well, you can't make everyone happy, even though Germany's trying to be agreeable.

Quoted

Yes, unless Chile wants to vote as well.

Chile is neither a Contracting Power nor applying to be one; though I'm curious to see what Chile thinks, it should not be part of our actual voting.

Chile would agree with India's statement on Chile's status at these proceding. But Mr. Oyama will turn in an unofficial vote to show the Chilean opinion on the matters after I review the clauses and amendments.

(I wasn't keeping a running list on my opinion as I wasn't planning on voting).

Quoted

And That is why Nordmark votes no on that subject, we don't wish to see hybrids in the baltic making our lives more difficult

I would have said that the Baltic is the worst place for hybrids.

Quoted

Originally posted by Ithekro
Question/Clarification/Proposal:

"The delegation from India suggested that abstentions counted as "No" votes. This is based on the premiss that all treaty members must say yes to get the treaty changed. Chile finds this a little absurd, as an abstention means that said nation does not care one way or the other. The voting should only count the 'yes' or 'no' votes for treaty changes and amendments. And abstain is an abstain and will not stop a change."

The United Kingdom delegate stands.

"Mr. Oyama, we completely agree with your comments. An abstention should be counted as a vote of indifference, not of opposal to a motion. To this end, I move that, for the purposes of this conference, only "Yes" and "No" votes shall be considered in determining whether or not a further motion is passed.

For obvious reasons, I believe that this motion must be either approved or otherwise before any other."

"The Philippines will second the good Englishman's motion."

***

Fixing a Question Mark:

Sub Hull/Displacement ----------- Si

Unofficial Document: For Testing Purposes Only.
Subject: Tochiro Oyama
May 3, 1929

Chile
Germany limits ------------------ Yes
Australia/UK limits ------------- Yes
Museum Ships -------------------- Yes
Rebuilding/reconstruction ------- Yes
Training Ships ------------------ Yes
Experimental Submarines --------- Abstain
Unrestricted vessels ------------ Yes
Filipino limits ----------------- Abstain
6 inch guns --------------------- Abstain
Cruiser tonnage ----------------- Yes
Capital Ship Definition --------- No
General Ship Definition --------- Yes
Hull limits vs tonnage ---------- Yes
Minor Power Limits -------------- Yes
Sales of warships (new + old) A – No
Sales of warships (new + old) B – Yes
Sales of warships (new + old) C - Yes
Capital ship limits ------------- Abstain
Compliance ---------------------- Yes
Sub Hull/Displacement ----------- Abstain
Hybrid ships -------------------- Yes
Abstain = Abstain ----------------- Yes

Greece is largely ambivalent on all proposals with the exception of the sale of warships changes to the point that it would leave the treaty. Possibly the way forward is for people to point out their most significant objections and just work on those.

Maybe with the sale of warships (old or new) that there are no restrictions but a sale by a CT signatory (to any party) can be vetoed by another CT signatory for ships over 10,000 tons in size.

Cheers,

Atlantis could agree to the Greek preposal, but for ships above 13,000 tons. That would allow for capital ship sales to non signatory's but with the Veto, sensitive regional tentions could take precidence and bar such transactions.

Quoted

Originally posted by alt_naval
Maybe with the sale of warships (old or new) that there are no restrictions but a sale by a CT signatory (to any party) can be vetoed by another CT signatory for ships over 10,000 tons in size.

[OOC: I think such a veto should be necessary for sales to third parties outside the CT only. For sales among CT signatories such a vote is not necessary - ships sold will still count against a signatories limits and not "vanish" to vassal states.]

OOC: I'd have thought we'd want to avoid having Nation A setting up Puppet B and then have Puppet B join CT at which point Nation A 'sells' them 4 old battleships. In sutch a situation there would be a chorus of vetoes but not if there are no veto on CT->CT.

OOC: Perhaps sellers will have to work harder on the politicking side of things.

IC: Greece can accept Atlantis's proposal with no veto on Class A cruisers.

Cheers,

OOC: Would this veto be only on used vessels, or on new vessels as well? If it includes new-build vessels, I think we can assume an Italian rejection of the idea, their position has been made VERY clear.

So "Nation A" could veto any new capital ship sales to "Nation B" so long as "Nation B" is a Non-Contracting Power...

...and since mutual agreement is necessary to amend the treaty to include new Contracting Powers, "Nation A" can also prevent "Nation B" from joining the treaty...

...meaning "Nation A" can prevent "Nation B" from obtaining new capital ships in any way for the life of the treaty.

India believes that this combination of vetoes could be abused by Contracting Powers, and is not inclined to support the Greco-Atlantean proposal.

I thought any country wishing to join could do so without amending of the Treaty, per

Quoted

VI. NON-CONTRACTING POWERS WISHING TO BE SIGNATORY POWERS

Any Non-Contracting Power wishing to commit itself to this treaty, shall be allowed to do so by communicating to the Government of the Kingdom of Atlantis its intentions and by dispatching, to the Government of Atlantis, Plenipotentiaries authorised to sign for the Power the treaty. The nation shall be considered joined to and bound by the treaty when such plenipotentiaries have placed their signature on the document original. The Government of Atlantis shall then communicate the admission of the Signature Party to the other Contracting Powers. Any Contracting Power thus joined shall be counted as a Power of the lowest tier, with allowances equal to those of Greece, or equal to those of India, at the discretion of the Contracting Power joining.

Nowhere in that section of the Treaty is there any allowance for a veto by another CT member state. Yes, if the prospective member wants a special allocation (a la Germany or Australia), then there's a need for amendment and the possibility of a veto. But if the prospective member is content with Indian or Greek limits, there's no veto in the Treaty as it now stands. Or have I misread something?

Good point; I may be confused because there was some notion of new members having to negotiate their entry.

By the look of things, it's if the prospective new entrant wants something special (like Australia) or is specifically called out as a special case (Germany) that new entrants have to negotiate their entry. Otherwise, they can sign it and no one else gets a say in the matter. Does this modify the Indian position on the Greco-Atlantian ship sales proposal?

Maybe, maybe not. I'll have to think on it.